New EU court ruling directive stops ALL EU windfarm planning in the EU (aug 2021). Did Skepast & Puhkin got the message wrong?

Euroopa Liidu Kohus/ Academy of Sciences” mis tõendab, et tuulepargid vähendavad looduslikku tuult 50% rohkem; 60% rohkem pilvi ja 60% niiskemat kliimat ja 0,7 kraadi kõrgemat temperatuuri Juba määruse ja ringkirja suhtes, millega määratakse kindlaks tuulegeneraatorite paigaldamise ja käitamise loa väljastamise üldtingimused, tuleb läbi viia eelnev keskkonnamõju hindamine

The judgment of the EU court of Justice on 25 June 2020 (ECLI:EU:C:2020:503) confirms that the Climate Directives 2018/1999/EU and 2018/2001//EU, which incorporate the Paris Climate Agreements, stipulate that all previous EU environmental directives must be complied with. This is valid for all EU member states & layers of government (parishes). If not done, the planning is void (as if it never existed).

eesti Keel :

New field research is needed according to the new EU law to receive or keep a valid wind park permit.

The competent authority must set standards for each KMH. Standards must be properly be substantiated for the specific KMH. Need a thorough environmental assessment is needed Actual measurements and real research are needed for a specific wind farm. acting unlawfully justify a claim because of improper governmental management. See other posts or the link to your language version of the EU laweesti Keel, Euroopa Liidu Kohus PRESSITEADE nr 77/20 Luxembourg, 25. juuni 2020 Kohtuotsus (kohtuasi C-24/19).

Skepast & Puhkin got the message wrong we beleve, watching their recruirement add of june 2021.

S&P tries to make a model, but that’s not real data or real science. Reals means actual field measurement data. In science you validate your model against the truth. Energy companies they try to extrapolate none date using a model will fail, the court ruling explains. Real open science is needed. Unfortunately that does not exists, TU explained. In Estonia there is no Full OpenScience. Tartu University ONLY Encourage open accessThe butcher tests his own meat. Many Scientistes are paid by Estonian Energy. EE did hire scientists and did put them on their paylist and let them sign a secrecy clause. Read more on fake Science in Estonia in this post.

Simply explained the law demands that humans are protected by maximum risks levels set upfront

Risk levels must be a part of the permit. Just like we do with other stuff, like a vaccine for example. In the EU we do not accept the Russian Sputnik vaccine, because it was not tested upfront. This law demands we test and limit the risks upfront just as we do with medicine. Doesn’t it sound logical? Windmills can kill: “Eitapjatuulikutele” or “no killer mills” is our name!

EU councils of state demand EU nations to set the values that do not harm people.

All over the EU windfarms are stopped. The Dutch court ordered a stop on all new building permits until the parliament decides on the critical values that must be based upon science upon real measurable data. Not a model. So, first, build 400-meter test windmills, then measure and research upon open science( Estonia has not we explained in other posts). Then set values. When governments (like Häädemeeste parish on august 5th 2021) try to bypass these rules they are liable because of improper management and ignoring the law. It’s above all very undemocratic, just before elections, after the Sea planning was killed, the parish rejected KMH, The Green deal offers an alternative (see other recent posts). If they still do so, the permits they all cheat on are void (as if they did not exist). Here is the Dutch newspaper that explains.

Council of state:

This EU law applies also uneconomic use of resources, article 5 of the Estonian constitution.

Estonians remember the soviet times when uneconomic usage polluted and killed people. To prevent that from happening again all activity must be economically sound in Estonia. Demand-driven, not pushed by plans or the state like in the old times. For example. Estonia now builds 7 times more wind energy than it needs. Making more than you need is uneconomic too.

It’s also not the task of Estonian Energy to risk business outside the country too. Risks like this are for the taxpayer. You cannot copy a windmills success from wind west-EU to 7 times less windy and icy Estonia and expect to make a profit. Happy to have art 5. and this EU law to protect the people. This law protects against dumb businessmen who make their profit based on subsidations and selling Estonian land and sea (&forest) abroad. Please support us & Estonia by telling this story around or donate!

Many risks need research and data that could affect health. Like the (ultra)sound.

We applied to this new law to this important research on wind.

Published on July 2021 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ( that proofs windfarms lower the natural wind by 50% more power. 60 % more clouds and 60 percent moister and 0,7 degrees higher ( ) temperature for Häädemeeste. Man-made climate change that kills tourism and agriculture/forest. No more Kiting! ))). (Also Research done by Steven Sherwood (University of New South Wales, Australia). According to EU law, the parish must limit these risks by given max values. Otherwise, the permit is void (unlawful or as if it did not exist). Acting unlawfully justifies a claim because of improper governmental management. Decommissioning/building pollution/disasters must be described in the permit as well.

Under the relevant EU Directives, an EIA is required for “plans or programmes” that are likely to significantly effect on the environment, that are prepared and adopted by national, regional or local authorities, and that are required under public law provisions. They must also set out a framework for future projects listed in the Annexes to the relevant EU Directives, such as wind farms. The Court of Justice of the EU rendered a ruling on 25/6/2020 on the application of SMB Directive 2001/42/EU. The European Court confirms that under European law, wind farms fall under the SMB RL 2001/42/EU, which also includes the UN(Aarhus en Espo). The SMB Directive 2001/42/EU must be followed by the Member States – and therefore also the local authorities. All planning is void, even when the building has started legal ground 89 of this new judgment of the EU Court shows. Happy start! ))). health effects must be assessed, and this according to strict standards. According to the lawyer, a permit may only be granted ‘if the health of local residents does not deteriorate. Hence all maximum values must be dictated by the Parish upfront. Several elements that had to be taken into account when deciding whether to allow for the installation of wind turbines, such as grouping, land and sea use, moist levels and cloud forming, sea current and wind, habitat, agriculture, industrial land, noise impact, shadow cast, safety and nature. Limits on (ultra)sound, vibration limits (for the fish eggs), pollution limits during building and decomissioning ect. Councils of the EU states work hard to figgure out all the details. If you Google the news, it becomes clear that EU law is a windmill showstopper. EE has only 5 years left to realize their permits.

An anology to make this EU law clear: Windmills are handled since this EU court ruling just like we handle a vaccin. We must test it extensive before usage. We map and limit all risks possible. When a vaccin is not tested, like the Russian Sputnik vaccin, we just do not use it.

eesti Keel : Euroopa Liidu Kohus PRESSITEADE nr 77/20 Luxembourg, 25. juuni 2020 Juba määruse ja ringkirja suhtes, millega määratakse kindlaks tuulegeneraatorite paigaldamise ja käitamise loa väljastamise üldtingimused, tuleb läbi viia eelnev keskkonnamõju hindamine Euroopa Kohtu suurkoda tõlgendas 25. juuni 2020. aasta kohtuotsuses A jt (Aalteri ja Nevele tuulepargid) (C-24/19) direktiivi 2001/42 teatavate kavade ja programmide keskkonnamõju hindamise kohta1 , esitades olulisi täpsustusi direktiivis ette nähtud hindamise esemeks olevate meetmete ning hindamata jätmise tagajärgede kohta. Euroopa Kohtule esitati see tõlgendamistaotlus kohtuvaidluses ühelt poolt Aalteri ja Nevele kohaliku omavalitsusüksuse territooriumil asuva kiirtee E40 läheduses asuva ning tuulepargi rajamiseks ette nähtud ala elanike ja teiselt poolt Gewestelijke stedenbouwkundige ambtenaar van het departement Ruimte Vlaanderen, afdeling Oost-Vlaandereni (piirkondlik ehituslube väljastav nõukogu Flandria piirkonnas, Ida-Flandria osakond, Belgia) vahel seoses selle asutuse antud loaga viie tuulegeneraatori paigaldamiseks ja käitamiseks (edaspidi „vaidlusalune luba“). Vaidlusaluse loa väljastamiseks 30. novembril 2016 pidid muu hulgas olema täidetud teatud tingimused, mis on kehtestatud Flandria valitsuse määrusega ning tuulegeneraatorite paigaldamist ja käitamist käsitleva ringkirjaga. Vaidlusaluse loa tühistamiseks Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingenile (loavaidlusi menetlev nõukogu, Belgia) (edaspidi „liikmesriigi kohus“) esitatud kaebuse põhjendamiseks väitsid kaebajad muu hulgas, et rikutud on direktiivi 2001/42, sest vaidlusaluse loa aluseks olnud määruse ja ringkirja keskkonnamõju ei hinnatud. Vaidlusaluse loa väljaandja leidis seevastu, et määruse ja ringkirja keskkonnamõju ei tulnud hinnata. Euroopa Kohus märkis tänases kohtuotsuses, et direktiiv 2001/42 hõlmab kavasid ja programme ning nende muudatusi, mille koostab või võtab vastu liikmesriigi asutus, tingimusel et neid „nõutakse õigusnormidega“2 . Lisaks on konkreetse kava või programmi keskkonnamõju hindamise kohustus ette nähtud tingimusel, et nimetatud kava või programm on tõenäoliselt olulise keskkonnamõjuga.3 Esiteks otsustas Euroopa Kohus seoses mõistega „kavad ja programmid, mida nõutakse õigusnormidega“, et see mõiste hõlmab liikmesriigi föderaalse üksuse valitsuse määrust ja ringkirja, mis mõlemad sisaldavad erinevaid sätteid tuulegeneraatorite paigaldamise ja käitamise kohta. Euroopa Kohtu väljakujunenud kohtupraktikast nähtub nimelt, et direktiivi tähenduses ja kohaldamisel on „nõutavad“ sellised kavad ja programmid, mille vastuvõtmist reguleerivad liikmesriigi õigusnormid, millega määratakse kindlaks nende vastuvõtmiseks pädevad ametiasutused ja nende koostamise menetlus.4 Niisiis tuleb meedet pidada „nõutavaks“, kui meetme vastuvõtmise pädevuse õiguslik alus on seda laadi säte, isegi kui selle meetme vastuvõtmine ei ole otseselt kohustuslik.5 Vastates eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtu ja Ühendkuningriigi valitsuse palvele seda kohtupraktikat muuta, toonitas Euroopa Kohus kõigepealt, et direktiivi 2001/42 artikli 2 punkti a teises taandes ette nähtud tingimuse piiramine nii, et see hõlmaks üksnes „kavasid ja programme“, mille vastuvõtmine on kohustuslik, võib oluliselt piirata selle mõiste kohaldamisala ega võimalda tagada selle sätte soovitavat toimet. Euroopa Kohus leidis nimelt, et võttes arvesse olukordade mitmekesisust ja riigisiseste asutuste praktika heterogeensust, ei ole kavade või programmide vastuvõtmine ja nende muutmine sageli ette nähtud üldiselt ega ole jäetud täielikult pädevate asutuste otsustada. Lisaks vastab keskkonnakaitse kõrge tase, mida püüab tagada direktiiv 2001/42, nähes ette olulise keskkonnamõjuga kavade ja programmide keskkonnamõju hindamise, aluslepingute ja Euroopa Liidu põhiõiguste harta nõuetele keskkonnakaitse ja keskkonna kvaliteedi parandamise alal6 . Selliste eesmärkide saavutamine satuks aga ohtu kitsendava tõlgenduse korral, mis võimaldaks liikmesriigil vältida keskkonnamõju hindamise kohustust nii, et ta ei tee kavade või programmide vastuvõtmist kohustuslikuks. Lõpetuseks märkis Euroopa Kohus, et mõiste „kavad ja programmid“ laiendav tõlgendus on kooskõlas liidu rahvusvaheliste kohustustega7 . Seejärel analüüsis Euroopa Kohus küsimust, kas määrus ja ringkiri vastavad direktiivi 2001/42 artikli 2 punkti a teises taandes ette nähtud tingimusele. Seoses sellega märkis ta, et määruse võttis seaduse volitusnormi alusel vastu Flandria valitsus kui Belgia föderaalne üksus. Samuti on Flandria valitsus võtnud vastu ringkirja, mille eesmärk on piiritleda pädevate asutuste kaalutlusõigust ning millega muudetakse määruse sätteid, arendades neid edasi või kaldudes nendest kõrvale, kuid liikmesriigi kohtul tuleb kontrollida, milline on nimetatud ringkirja täpne õiguslik tähendus ja sisu. Euroopa Kohus jõudis seega järeldusele, et määrus ja – kui nimetatud kontrolli tulemusel ei ilmne vastupidist – ringkiri on hõlmatud mõistega „kavad ja programmid“, mida tuleb pidada „nõutavaks“ direktiivi 2001/42 tähenduses. Teiseks, seoses küsimusega, kas määruse ja ringkirja keskkonnamõju tuleb direktiivi 2001/42 kohaselt hinnata, kuna need on tõenäoliselt olulise keskkonnamõjuga, otsustas Euroopa Kohus, et nimetatud aktid, mis mõlemad sisaldavad sätteid tuulegeneraatorite paigaldamise ja käitamise kohta, sealhulgas varjutuse, ohutuse ja müranormidega seotud meetmeid, on aktid, mille keskkonnamõju tuleb hinnata. Euroopa Kohus leidis sellega seoses, et määruses ja ringkirjas sätestatud tuulegeneraatorite paigaldamise ja käitamise eeskirjad on piisavalt olulised ja ulatuslikud, et määrata kindlaks tingimused, mille täitmisel väljastatakse luba tuuleparkide rajamiseks ja käitamiseks, mille keskkonnamõju ei saa eitada. Ta täpsustas, et ringkirja eriline õiguslik olemus ei sea sellist tõlgendust kahtluse alla. Kolmandaks, seoses võimalusega jätta kehtima nende aktide ja loa tagajärjed, mis on vastu võetud direktiivi 2001/42 rikkudes, märkis Euroopa Kohus, et liikmesriigid on kohustatud kõrvaldama liidu õiguse sellise rikkumise õigusvastased tagajärjed. Ta rõhutas, et liidu õiguse ühetaolise kohaldamise nõuet arvestades võib üksnes Euroopa Kohus erandlikel juhtudel ja õiguskindlusest tulenevatel ülekaalukatel põhjustel ajutiselt peatada välistava mõju, mis on liidu õiguse sättel, mida on rikutud, tingimusel et riigisisene õigusnorm võimaldab liikmesriigi kohtul jätta tema menetluses olevas kohtuasjas kehtima selliste aktide teatavad tagajärjed. Seetõttu otsustas Euroopa Kohus, et sellises olukorras nagu käesolevas kohtuasjas võib liikmesriigi kohus jätta määruse ja ringkirja ning nende alusel antud loa tagajärjed kehtima üksnes juhul, kui riigisisene õigus seda tema menetluses oleva kohtuasja puhul lubab ja kui kõnealuse loa tühistamine võib mõjutada oluliselt asjaomase liikmesriigi, antud juhul Belgia elektrivarustust, ning üksnes ajavahemikuks, mis on hädavajalik õigusvastasuse kõrvaldamiseks, kuid seda tuleb vajaduse korral hinnata liikmesriigi kohtul.

ENG Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 77/20 Luxembourg, 25 June 2020 An order and a circular that set out the general conditions for the grant of development consent for the installation and operation of wind turbines must themselves be the subject of a prior environmental assessment By the judgment A and others (Wind turbines at Aalter and Nevele) (C-24/19), delivered on 25 June 2020, the Court, sitting as the Grand Chamber, ruled on the interpretation of Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment,1 and gave important clarifications as to the instruments that are subject to the assessment prescribed by that directive and as to the consequences flowing from a failure to carry out an assessment. The Court received that request for interpretation in the context of proceedings between the neighbours of a site located close to the E40 motorway on the territory of the Aalter and Nevele communes, proposed for the installation of a wind farm by the Gewestelijke stedenbouwkundige ambtenaar van het departement Ruimte Vlaanderen, afdeling Oost-Vlaanderen (regional town planning official of the Flanders Department of Land Planning, East Flanders Division, Belgium), concerning the grant by that official of development consent for the purpose of the installation and operation of five wind turbines (‘the consent at issue’). The grant, on 30 November 20019, of the consent at issue had been subject, inter alia, to certain conditions laid down by the provisions of an order of the Flemish government and a circular on the installation and operation wind turbines being satisfied. In support of an action seeking the annulment of the consent at issue brought before the Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen (Council for consent disputes, Belgium) (‘the national court’) the applicants alleged, in particular, a breach of Directive 2001/42, on the ground that the order and the circular, on the basis of which the consent had been granted, had not been subject to an environmental assessment. The official who had granted the consent at issue considered, on the contrary, that the order and circular in question were not required to be subject to such an assessment. In today’s judgment, the Court recalled that Directive 2001/42 covers plans and programmes, and modifications to them, which are prepared or adopted by an authority of a Member State, in so far as they are ‘required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’.2 Furthermore, it makes the obligation to subject a specific plan or programme to an environmental assessment subject to the condition that the plan or programme, referred to in that provision, is likely to have significant effects on the environment.3 In the first place, as regards the concept of ‘plans and programmes required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions’, the Court held that an order and a circular adopted by the government of a federated entity of a Member State, both of which contain various provisions on the installation and operation of wind turbines are covered by that concept. It is clear from the established case-law of the Court that plans and programmes whose adoption is regulated by national legislative or regulatory provisions, which determine the competent authorities for adopting them and the procedure for preparing them, must be regarded as ‘required’ within the meaning, and for the application, of that directive.4 Thus, a measure must be regarded as ‘required’ where the legal basis of the power to adopt the measure is found in a particular provision, even if the adoption of that measure is not, strictly speaking, compulsory.5 Invited by the referring court and the UK Government to reconsider that line of case-law, the Court noted first of all that to restrict the condition referred to in Article 2(a), second indent, of Directive 2001/42 only to ‘plans and programmes’ whose adoption is compulsory would be likely to confer a marginal scope on that concept and would not enable the effectiveness of that provision to be maintained. According to the Court, having regard to the diversity of situations that arise and the wide-ranging practices of national authorities, the adoption of plans or programmes and modifications to them is often neither imposed as a general requirement, nor left entirely to the discretion of the competent authorities. Moreover, the high level of protection for the environment that Directive 2001/42 seeks to ensure by subjecting plans and programmes that are likely to have a significant effect on the environment to an environmental assessment meets the requirements of the Treaties and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.6 Those objectives would be likely to be compromised by a strict interpretation, which would allow a Member State to circumvent easily that requirement for an environmental assessment by deliberately refraining from providing that competent authorities are required to adopt such plans and programmes. Finally, the Court observed that a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘plans and programmes’ was consistent with the EU’s international undertakings.7 Next the Court examined whether the order and the circular in question satisfied the condition in Article 2(a), second indent, of Directive 2001/42. In that regard it observed that the order had been adopted by the Flemish government in its capacity as the executive authority of a federated Belgian entity, pursuant to a legislative power. In addition, the circular, which provides a framework for the competent authorities’ discretion, also emanates from the Flemish government and amends, by extending or derogating from them, the provisions of the order, subject to the verifications which is it for the national court to carry out, as to its exact legal nature and effect. The Court therefore concluded that the order and, subject to those verifications, the circular were covered by the concept of ‘plans and programmes’, in that they must be regarded as ‘required’ within the meaning of Directive 2001/42. In the second place, as regards whether the order and the circular must be subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with Directive 2001/42, on the ground that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment, the Court held that those instruments, both of which contain various provisions regarding the installation and operation of wind turbines, including measures on shadow flicker, safety and noise level standards, are instruments that must be subject to such an environmental assessment. In that regard, the Court considered that the importance and scope of the requirements laid down in the order and circular in question regarding the installation and operation of wind turbines were sufficiently significant for the determination of the conditions subject to which consent would be granted for the installation and operation of wind farms, whose environmental impact was undeniable. It added that that interpretation could not be called into question by the particular legal nature of the circular. In the third place, and lastly, as regards the possibility of maintaining the effects of those instruments and the consent, adopted in breach of Directive 2001/42, the Court recalled that Member States are required to eliminate the unlawful consequences of such a breach of EU law. The Court underlined that having regard to the need to ensure the uniform application of EU law, it alone could, in exceptional cases, for overriding considerations of in the general interest, allow temporary suspension of the ousting effect of a rule of EU law that has been breached, provided that a national law empowers the national court to maintain certain effects of such acts in the context of the dispute before it. Consequently, the Court held that, in circumstances such as those in the present case, the national court could maintain the effects of the order and the circular, and the consent that was adopted on the basis of those instruments, only if the national law permitted it to do so in the proceedings before it and if the annulment of that consent would be likely to have significant implications for the electricity supply of the whole of the Member State concerned, in the present case Belgium, and only for the period of time strictly necessary to remedy that illegality, which it was for the national court, if necessary, to assess. ==


mis tõendab, et tuulepargid vähendavad looduslikku tuult 50% rohkem; 60%
rohkem pilvi ja 60% niiskemat kliimat ja 0,7 kraadi kõrgemat temperatuuri

Euroopa Komisjon algatas 9. juunil Eesti vastu rikkumisemenetluse seoses metsaraietega Natura 2000 võrgustiku aladel.

Komisjon on seisukohal, et Eesti rikub EL-i keskkonnaõigust, täpsemalt loodusdirektiivi ja keskkonnamõju strateegilise hindamise (KSH) direktiivi.

Keskkonnaministeerium pidanuks oma seisukohad Euroopa Komisjonile esitama kahe kuu jooksul alates rikkumismenetluse algatamisest juuni alguses. Teadaolevalt on Keskkonnaministeerium aga taotlenud vastamistähtaja pikendamist ning see on lükkunud septembrisse. Sel nädalal arutab rikkumismenetlust riigikogu keskkonnakomisjon.EL-i õiguse järgi tuleb enne metsaraie lubamist hinnata, kuidas otsus mõjutaks Natura ala kaitse-eesmärkide saavutamist. Loodusdirektiiv kohustab hindama nii konkreetsete tegevuste mõju, nagu raie, kui ka neile tegevustele raamtingimusi seadvate kavade mõjusid, nt metsanduse arengukava ja üldplaneering. Viimast tüüpi mõju hindamisi nimetatakse mõju strateegiliseks hindamiseks ning seda reguleerib lisaks loodusdirektiivile ka KSH direktiiv.

image 11 1024x639

ELi energiavolinik Kadri Simson:
„Tugevamad suhted kodanikega saavad alguse usalduse ja usalduse loomisest. Ma nõuan läbipaistvuse ja
eetika kõrgeimat taset … Ma tahan, et te keskenduksite tarbijate asetamisele meie energiasüsteemi
keskmesse. ” AU!

image 12

Palun tutvuge EL kohtulahendiga: Euroopa Liidu Kohus PRESSITEADE nr 77/20 Luxembourg, 25. juuni 2020 Kohtuotsus (kohtuasi C-24/19).

Euroopa Liidu õigust on rikutud. Tuulepargi kehtiva loa saamiseks või säilitamiseks on ELi seaduse kohaselt
vaja teha uusi väliuuringuid. Pädev asutus peab kehtestama standardid igale KMH-le. Standardid peavad
olema konkreetse KMH jaoks nõuetekohaselt põhjendatud. Iga konkreetse tuulepargi jaoks on vaja tegelikke
mõõtmisi ja tegelikke uuringuid. Ebaseaduslik käitumine õigustab nõuet valitsuse ebaõige juhtimise tõttu.

Uut seadust rakendati olulise tuuleuuringu suhtes, mis avaldati juulis 2021 ajakirjas “Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences” (mis tõendab, et tuulepargid vähendavad looduslikku tuult 50% rohkem; 60%
rohkem pilvi ja 60% niiskemat kliimat ja 0,7 kraadi kõrgemat temperatuuri). Tulemuseks on
inimtekkelinekliimamuutus, mis tapab nii turismi, põllumajanduse kui ka metsa.
Uuringu sisuga saate tutvuda siin:
Kliimaeesmärkide saavutamiseks palume metsa kasutada:
Läti valik:
Üks aasta autokasutuse “neutraliseerimiseks” vajame 10×121 puud, mis hinnanguliselt teeb 1 hektar metsa.
Valda peab tasustama metsaga CO2 neutraliseerimise eest:

Meriplaan & Jaagupi_sadam

Rahandusministeeriumi poolt edastatud dokument.

Pealkiri: Eesti mereala planeeringule esitatud ettepanekud

Registreerimise kuupäev: 07.07.2021

Registreerimise number: 15-1/4745-2.